Cargando…

Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial

With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric int...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smereka, Jacek, Madziala, Marcin, Dunder, Dominika, Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta, Szarpak, Lukasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511341/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30976922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03375-y
_version_ 1783417558058139648
author Smereka, Jacek
Madziala, Marcin
Dunder, Dominika
Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta
Szarpak, Lukasz
author_facet Smereka, Jacek
Madziala, Marcin
Dunder, Dominika
Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta
Szarpak, Lukasz
author_sort Smereka, Jacek
collection PubMed
description With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric intubation or videolaryngoscopy performed endotracheal intubation in scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) difficult airway without chest compressions, (C) normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, (D) difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. Scenario A. Total intubation success with both laryngoscopes: 100%. First-attempt success: 100% for UEScope, 96.8% for Miller. Median intubation time for UEScope: 13 s [IQR, 12.5–17], statistically significantly lower than for Miller: 14 s [IQR, 12–19.5] (p = 0.044). Scenario B. Total efficacy: 81.7% for Miller, 100% for UEScope (p = 0.012). First-attempt success: 48.4% for Miller, 87.1% for UEScope (p = 0.001). Median intubation time: 27 s [IQR, 21–33] with Miller, 15 s [IQR, 14–21] with UEScope (p = 0.001). Scenario C. Total efficiency: 91.4% with Miller, 100% with UEScope (p = 0.018); first-attempt success: 67.7 vs. 90.3% (p = 0.003), respectively. Intubation time: 21 s [IQR, 18–28] for Miller, 15 s [IQR, 12–19.5] for UEScope. Scenario D. Total efficiency: 65.6% with Miller, 98.9% with UEScope (p < 0.001); first-attempt success: 29.1 vs. 72% (p = 0.001), respectively. Intubation time: 38 s [IQR, 23–46] for Miller, 21 s [IQR, 17–25.5] for UEScope. Conclusion: In pediatric normal airway without chest compressions, UEScope is comparable with Miller. In difficult pediatric airways without chest compressions, UEScope offers better first-attempt success, shorted median intubation time, and improved glottic visualization. With uninterrupted chest compressions in normal or difficult airway, UEScope provides a higher first-attempt success, a shorter median intubation time, and a better glottic visualization than Miller laryngoscope.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6511341
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65113412019-05-28 Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial Smereka, Jacek Madziala, Marcin Dunder, Dominika Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta Szarpak, Lukasz Eur J Pediatr Original Article With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric intubation or videolaryngoscopy performed endotracheal intubation in scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) difficult airway without chest compressions, (C) normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, (D) difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. Scenario A. Total intubation success with both laryngoscopes: 100%. First-attempt success: 100% for UEScope, 96.8% for Miller. Median intubation time for UEScope: 13 s [IQR, 12.5–17], statistically significantly lower than for Miller: 14 s [IQR, 12–19.5] (p = 0.044). Scenario B. Total efficacy: 81.7% for Miller, 100% for UEScope (p = 0.012). First-attempt success: 48.4% for Miller, 87.1% for UEScope (p = 0.001). Median intubation time: 27 s [IQR, 21–33] with Miller, 15 s [IQR, 14–21] with UEScope (p = 0.001). Scenario C. Total efficiency: 91.4% with Miller, 100% with UEScope (p = 0.018); first-attempt success: 67.7 vs. 90.3% (p = 0.003), respectively. Intubation time: 21 s [IQR, 18–28] for Miller, 15 s [IQR, 12–19.5] for UEScope. Scenario D. Total efficiency: 65.6% with Miller, 98.9% with UEScope (p < 0.001); first-attempt success: 29.1 vs. 72% (p = 0.001), respectively. Intubation time: 38 s [IQR, 23–46] for Miller, 21 s [IQR, 17–25.5] for UEScope. Conclusion: In pediatric normal airway without chest compressions, UEScope is comparable with Miller. In difficult pediatric airways without chest compressions, UEScope offers better first-attempt success, shorted median intubation time, and improved glottic visualization. With uninterrupted chest compressions in normal or difficult airway, UEScope provides a higher first-attempt success, a shorter median intubation time, and a better glottic visualization than Miller laryngoscope. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-04-11 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6511341/ /pubmed/30976922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03375-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Smereka, Jacek
Madziala, Marcin
Dunder, Dominika
Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta
Szarpak, Lukasz
Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
title Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
title_full Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
title_fullStr Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
title_short Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
title_sort comparison of miller laryngoscope and uescope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511341/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30976922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03375-y
work_keys_str_mv AT smerekajacek comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial
AT madzialamarcin comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial
AT dunderdominika comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial
AT makomaskaszaroszykelzbieta comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial
AT szarpaklukasz comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial